veto_council_debate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool returns a verdict, reads project files (package.json, git diff) when project_dir is provided, uses tokens, and logs usage. It explains the two-phase process and that the first call is deterministic. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, covering the core functionality in a single paragraph. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for the two phases) but remains efficient and readable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (9 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description explains the workflow and key features but does not detail the return value structure beyond the verdict types and the llm_upgrade.debate_prompt. For a tool with no output schema, more information about the response format would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description provides context for the two-phase workflow and the agent_responses parameter but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema descriptions for most parameters. The schema already documents all parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it runs a Veto Council of 7 specialist agents that debate a task and return a verdict (GREEN/YELLOW/RED/DEADLOCK). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the multi-agent debate mechanism and the two-phase workflow (deterministic then LLM-backed).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage instructions: call with task only for instant deterministic result, then reason as agents and call again with agent_responses for LLM-backed verdict. It also mentions optional parameters like strictness and project_dir. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.